SUPREME COURT AMENDS RULES TO ADDRESS AI USE IN COURT FILINGS

Responding to the growing use — and misuse — of generative artificial intelligence in court filings, the Florida Supreme Court has amended statewide court rules to require attorneys and self-represented litigants to certify that legal authorities cited in filings are accurate.

The amended rules, approved by the court on its own motion May 28 in Case No. SC2026-0673, also expressly authorizes judges to impose sanctions for filings containing fabricated or inaccurately cited authorities, including citations generated by AI tools that can produce what the court called convincing but nonexistent cases, quotations, or legal analysis.

In the accompanying commentary, the court said the amendments were adopted “principally to create a statewide, uniform replacement for varied circuit court administrative orders imposing disclosure and certification requirements about the use of artificial intelligence in filings.”

Specifically, the court amended Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2) (Representation by Signer) to state that by filing, the signer of a document represent that “the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited.”

The amendment also authorizes courts to impose appropriate sanctions for “any filing inconsistent with” the representation a signer makes under Rule 2.515(d)(2). The court included an express sanctions provision in amended subdivision (d)(2) to avoid uncertainty over courts’ continuing authority to impose sanctions in this context, as provided for in the circuit court administrative orders that have been replaced.

The court said generative AI tools — including large language models and other systems that produce text or citations in response to prompts — are being used regularly as drafting or research aids for court filings.

“Though these tools can be helpful, they also can generate content that appears plausible but is in fact inaccurate, including fabricated or ‘hallucinated’ authorities,” the court said.

The court also amended Rule 2.515(d)(2) to provide that courts may “impose sanctions for any filing inconsistent with this representation after providing the signer notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Rule 2.515(d)(2) was also amended to specify that “[s]uch sanctions may include reprimand, contempt, striking of the document, dismissal of proceedings, costs, attorneys’ fees, or other sanctions.”

The court followed up the opinion with an Administrative Order that preempts any circuit AOs requiring certification.

"The amendments to rule 2.515(d)(2) obviate the need for circuit-level disclosure or certification requirements about the use of artificial intelligence and the accuracy of information in court filings," the order reads. "Accordingly, courts may not impose such requirements – whether through local administrative orders, court policies, judicial practices and procedures, or other means. Rather, courts should rely on amended rule 2.515(d)(2), including the enforcement authority expressly set out in the rule."

"The Florida Supreme Court has taken a thoughtful, balanced approach — embracing innovation while preserving the profession’s core ethical duties," said Board of Governors member Gordon Glover, who co-chairs the Bar's Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence Tools & Resources. "These amendments reinforce that generative AI is a tool, not a substitute for professional judgment. Lawyers can benefit from these technologies but they must independently verify the accuracy of everything submitted to the court."

The amendments become effective June 15 at 12:01 a.m. Because the amendments were not published for comment previously, interested people have until August 11 to file comments with the court, as well as a separate request for oral argument if the person filing the comment wishes to participate in oral argument, which may be scheduled in this case.